Smoke Notes Cigar Review: Elogio Excentrico No. 3
Elogio Excentrico No. 3 (6 1/8×58)
W: Ecuadorian Habano
B: Nicaraguan Ometepe
F: Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Pennsylvania
Factory: Tabacalera La Flor De San Luis S.A., Esteli
Blended using an interesting mix of Dominican Ligero and Seco, Pennsylvania Viso, and Esteli Seco tobaccos beneath a Nicaraguan Ometepe binder and Ecuador Habano wrapper, this limited release made its debut at last years IPCPR trade show. When the Excentrico No. 3 box came across my desk this week, it was its striking presentation that led me to pull one out for review.
Notes:
- As mentioned above, these are some nice-looking smokes. Somehow this torpedo manages to be simultaneously classy and rustic in appearance. It’s obvious that a lot of care went into rolling these cigars.
- No cutter was required on this stick thanks to the ample pigtail cap, and the covered foot made lighting a breeze.
- Crisp cedar with a spicy nutmeg finish were dominant notes in the opening profile.
- Heavy leather and Oak flavors took precedence as I burned into the 2nd third. Soon after, these were awash in a generous stream of milky cream.
- The middle portion of this cigar was incredibly creamy-smooth, much more so than I had expected.
- Although the profile was quite creamy, there was some mellow spice woven throughout. A quick retrohale in the last third assured me of this.
- As I neared the end of the smoke a final flavor progression that reminded me of mesquite barbecue flavoring turned up.
- The excellent construction on this cigar turned out to be not only aesthetically appealing, but functional as well: both burn and draw were exemplary from start to finish.
Flavor Report: freshly cut Cedar, nutmeg, Oak, leather, cream, espresso, woody sweetness, smoky Cedar
Overall: 8/10
It’s hard not to give a high mark to a cigar that’s this well-made. The Excentrico No. 3’s handsome looks and perfect burn were just the icing on the cake for its ultra-smooth and woody profile. Have you tried the Elogio Excentrico No. 3? If so, let us know what you thought in a comment below.
